Kaz Kojima wrote:
some compile time errors in c/c++ test for sh64-unknown-linux-elf
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2005-09/msg00466.html
3 tests
gcc.c-torture/compile/simd-4.c
gcc.c-torture/execute/20050604-1.c
gcc.dg/torture/pr21817-1.c
fail with the similar ICE:
gcc/gcc/testsuite
Richard Henderson wrote:
On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 04:58:50PM +0100, Joern RENNECKE wrote:
The lack of a debugger that works reliably with recent gcc versions has
led to an increasing backlog of uninvestigated execution failures.
Do you think it's the debugger or the compiler that's at
Joern RENNECKE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I can't justify spending the amount time that it would take to make the
> sh64 port regression free.
> The lack of a debugger that works reliably with recent gcc versions has
> led to an increasing
> backlog of uninvestigated execution failures.
Althou
On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 04:58:50PM +0100, Joern RENNECKE wrote:
> The lack of a debugger that works reliably with recent gcc versions has
> led to an increasing backlog of uninvestigated execution failures.
Do you think it's the debugger or the compiler that's at fault?
r~
Joern RENNECKE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I can't justify spending the amount time that it would take to make the
> sh64 port regression free.
> The lack of a debugger that works reliably with recent gcc versions has
> led to an increasing
> backlog of uninvestigated execution failures.
For ref
I can't justify spending the amount time that it would take to make the
sh64 port regression free.
The lack of a debugger that works reliably with recent gcc versions has
led to an increasing
backlog of uninvestigated execution failures.
